Velazquez v. Gaitan

499 So. 2d 66, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 134
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 30, 1986
Docket86-285
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 499 So. 2d 66 (Velazquez v. Gaitan) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Velazquez v. Gaitan, 499 So. 2d 66, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 134 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

499 So.2d 66 (1986)

Alberto VELAZQUEZ and Carmen Velazquez, His Wife, Appellants,
v.
Alavar GAITAN, M.D., Appellee.

No. 86-285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

December 30, 1986.

*67 Gerald E. Rosser, Miami, for appellants.

Bruce M. Boiko, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before HUBBART, NESBITT and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the plaintiffs [Alberto and Carmen Velazquez] from a final order dismissing a medical malpractice action. The basis for the dismissal was that (a) the said plaintiffs were six days late in answering the expert witness interrogatories of the defendant [Alavar Gaitan, M.D.] in violation of a court order compelling discovery, and (b) the said plaintiffs had answered these interrogatories by stating that they had selected no expert witness in the case, in alleged violation of the subject court order.

We reverse the order under review upon a holding that the drastic sanction of dismissal below constitutes an abuse of the trial court's discretion herein; we reach this result for two reasons. First, although the plaintiffs violated the trial court's order compelling discovery by being six days late in answering the subject interrogatories, the said violation was minor in nature and the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by this short delay. Second, the plaintiffs' answer was responsive to the subject interrogatories when it was stated that the plaintiffs had no expert witnesses, and, therefore, the answer did not violate the trial court's order compelling discovery in any way. We, therefore, conclude that the drastic sanction of dismissal was totally inappropriate in this case. Santuoso v. McGrath & Associates, Inc., 385 So.2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Beaver Crane Service, Inc. v. National Surety Corp., 373 So.2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Goldstein v. Goldstein, 284 So.2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973).

The final order of dismissal under review is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Evangelos v. Dachiel
553 So. 2d 245 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)
Pilkington Plc v. Metro Corp.
526 So. 2d 943 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
Zafirakopoulous v. South Miami Intern. Crabhouse Corp.
513 So. 2d 1353 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
Stimpson Computing Scale Co. v. Knuck
508 So. 2d 482 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)
McMillian v. State, Department of Corrections
506 So. 2d 1171 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
499 So. 2d 66, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velazquez-v-gaitan-fladistctapp-1986.